I found a benchmark for Photoshop performance by someone called Digital Lloyd. Apparently a very well respected Mac Bench test.
Their quick test called Speed1 shows that there is a funny fault in Photoshop CS6 - it favors a speedy disc and good RAM more than an even speedier disk with the same RAM. Didn't care much about my RAID0 but liked the single SSD.

Their Medium test shows that it's faster than a MacBook Pro Quad Core 2011 2.3GHz using 80% of it's memory (mine was set to use 100% wich apparently was a bad idea, can according to digilloyd get better results with only 70-80% RAM usage?!).
It is testing on a 20.000 pixel wide picture wich is 15.7GB in memory size! A pretty demanding bench...
Speedier disc or more RAM seems to be favored equally here.
Didn't care much about RAID0 and faster RAM.

----------

Clubofone Photoshop Speedtest:

Found a more "underground" Photoshop test that shows the same result as DigiLloyds Speed1 test. Faster RAM and faster disc is good, RAID0 no difference.

Duke Nukem FPS Game Test:

I tested the same theory that faster RAM would give more FPS in a real game, using a screen recording app that shows the average amount of FPS over a given time, in my case 5 minutes 15 seconds.
Didn't do any real difference so didn't test it on the SSDs.
The SMC and Apple OS X upgrades have might had an impact on the scores here because the original MM 2011 config scored higher?!?

----------

How fast can you copy/move 1GB data from Desktop to Documents:

A real world test of how fast I can now move/copy 1GB of data from my Desktop to my Documents folder.
Answer is really speedy!!!!

Boot time:

A few of the benchs will come as videos on YouTube whenever I get time to edit it. This one is a really amazing real world task - booting the computer in just 16 seconds to login screen and just below 18 with auto login!

The final total score is that in 16 tests the final build is the fastest I could do with these building blocks in a Mac Mini.
Intel 520 Series SSD drives and Kingston HyperX PnP 1867MHz DDR3 SODIMM is an EPIC combination!!!!

Remember you can always see pictures of the whole build over at Flickr. There are A LOT of pics I didn't show in the thread.

There is no doubt I beat MKBHD wich claims to have made the worlds fastest mac mini.
Mine have better CineBench scores, NovaBench boss scores was within reach if I wanted and my read/write DiskSpeed scores blows his machine away - so stop lying.

Btw, I chose the Kingston RAM because they in the tests that matters most for real world performance looks quickest and best performing.
I have very little reason to utilize 16GB of RAM, it's at the moment still a waste of money. If there ever come a 16GB 1867 or higher kit - for a reasonable price - then I though might buy it

What do you say, have I assembled the worlds fastests Mac Mini 2011/2012 dualcore i7 monster machine?

Raid0 ssds are fast for long copies of big files. raid0 ssds are not fast for small files. if you are using software raid the smallest block size is 32k for a raid0 build. then 64k then 128k . if your test files are a lot smaller then 32k the raid0 will suffer compared to a single ssd.

If you really want to play around rebuild the raid0 in all the choices they give to you then test and see which is faster.

Raid0 ssds are fast for long copies of big files. raid0 ssds are not fast for small files. if you are using software raid the smallest block size is 32k for a raid0 build. then 64k then 128k . if your test files are a lot smaller then 32k the raid0 will suffer compared to a single ssd.

If you really want to play around rebuild the raid0 in all the choices they give to you then test and see which is faster.

I know, and by the way I can choose between 16, 32, 64, 128 or 256k - for the benches like these I am pretty confident 256k would give greater number/speed but for my daily work I think 32 is a better choise, so that's what I went with.
Was thinking, if I decide to change - will it wear more on the SSDs than if I don't change block size? I would have to reinstall for that to work, right?

it kind of haunted me over night if Im able to push more performance out of the machine and never tried. So have rebuild the RAID with blocksize of 256k. Am goingnto work for the next few hours so the mac is left on to let the garbage collection do its magic so performance should be speediest. Hopefully. Look forward to even more numbers /thank you for the tip phil, would propably not have rebuild if you didm't "push"

it kind of haunted me over night if Im able to push more performance out of the machine and never tried. So have rebuild the RAID with blocksize of 256k. Am goingnto work for the next few hours so the mac is left on to let the garbage collection do its magic so performance should be speediest. Hopefully. Look forward to even more numbers /thank you for the tip phil, would propably not have rebuild if you didm't "push"

With all the tests you did why not do more? I read a thread 2 years ago on block size in raids done with apple software. Intel gen 1 x25m 160 gb ssds two in a raid0 a 320gb ssd.

the intel liked 128gb the best. now this example was done with the older models. IT turned out that the structure of the ssd bytes was based on a multiple of 128gb. I played around with different raid sizes on different ssds and the speed difference can be 5-10 %.

ON mac pros using hi end raid cards you can pick as low as 4k instead of 16 k. 4k was good for osx running not long copies and 256k was good for long copies of big files. Best example is an eyetv 3 hour recording in hdtv is 16 to 18gb. this will copy faster on a 256k setup vs a 16k setup. I guess if you are a tv station with years of recordings this would be useful.

I tested this with 40 3 hour recordings of eyetv about 640gb. I did it on a 4tb raid0 with 32k to a 4tb raid0 with 32k. Also with 128k the copy speed was 175MB with with 32k and 185MB with 128k. I used my t-bolt pegasus r6 with 4 2tb hdds inside plus 2 512gb samsung ssds. I used a mac mini server with the osx on 2 samsung ssds in raid0 as the osx. (a 1tb ssd BTW efffffing awesome) . I have a lot of eyetv recordings around 5tb and moving them quickly and safely is important to me.

What a great thread, AT0MAC thanks so much. I'm about to put 2 520 series in my Mini thanks to your inspiration and this is incredibly helpful. Next time (first time) I'm in Copenhagen beers are on me!

Question - how does general performance feel using the 32k block sizes? I don't do much work with large files so I'm guessing 16k or 32k would be better.

What a great thread, AT0MAC thanks so much. I'm about to put 2 520 series in my Mini thanks to your inspiration and this is incredibly helpful. Next time (first time) I'm in Copenhagen beers are on me!

Question - how does general performance feel using the 32k block sizes? I don't do much work with large files so I'm guessing 16k or 32k would be better.

really depends on your work and the ssd's internal structure. the last thorough testing I know of is on the older intel's. the best I can tell you is experiment and post it here. The info helps others. The intel's now use sand force controller so 128k which was the best to pick may no longer be valid for intel.

Not to offend you but I would recommend you made a thread yourself. Most people read a thread because of its headline, so if you start mixing different discutions into my thread it will be confusing what the overall topic originally was. Best option for your needs would probably have been the server edition because of the harder working cpu. Sorry m8

Actually all day because Lion install kept giving me error messages when it tried to build a recovery partition when I wanted to reinstall. Recovery partition is not possible on RAID. Get it fixed Apple!
(problem is very well described all over the net, it has nothing to do with my SSDs failing, it's a code error in the program running Lion install procedures).

Whenever I got the installer to do what I wanted it to it then only took 16 minutes to reinstall a fresh copy of OS X, that's pretty nice!
Took close to 45 minutes on my old Server MM

Decided to do only the synthetic benchmarks as they would give an idea about what is most ideal for a very broad range of tasks.

I tried RAID0 with 32, 64, 128 and 256k block size:

My quick recommendation is to use 128k blocks, it have the most consistent scores of either being best or second best all over the board.
Being best was more scattered.
Actually my old server mm also ran with 128k blocks and that machine was real speedy, even that it didn't had SSDs (it had Seagate hybrid SSD/HDD discs instead, look elsewhere in the thread).

There are many more numbers put on my flickr site, but it's real late now so have not sorted them out yet. Will return in the morning. Wife is already sleeping so better go join her.

----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwijbo

What a great thread, AT0MAC thanks so much. I'm about to put 2 520 series in my Mini thanks to your inspiration and this is incredibly helpful. Next time (first time) I'm in Copenhagen beers are on me!

Thank you. Actually I can't really remember last time I had a beer?!? Since I got married I been more a geek-fuel (soda) kind-a-guy (wife don't drink so no kisses if she smell beer).

The 520 series looks like a real winner! Just remember to get the Reseller or Retail edition as they have the 5 year warranty, the OEM only have 3.
Mine are reseller edition (also partially because they come in nicer cardboard boxes than OEM, looks better in pictures )

Let me know what your bench scores are when you put it together - is it by the way the dual core i7, i5 or quad i7 server Mac Mini you have?

There are many more numbers put on my flickr site, but it's real late now so have not sorted them out yet. Will return in the morning. Wife is already sleeping so better go join her.

Copy-paste the same sentence for today but swap the word "morning" for "whenever I get free time".

All day I have been installing apps, downloading new stuff and rearranging backups so I will end up with a mac ready to rule my desk as a daily life machine and no longer bench test subject.
Am currently warming up to buy a NAS as soon prices drop here in DK, so am moving data from three different harddrives and two flash drives into one single external drive, sorting it and setting up the correct shortcuts so programs like iTunes can find the music on the external drive instead of wearing out my SSDs in no time.

I would not worry about wearing out modern SSDs in their useful life (3-5 years) because you will want a new larger faster drive by the time wear becomes an issues. The SF2200 series controller has great wear leveling plus over provisioning.

Great thread, guys! Thank you for sharing your findings with the community. For the last few years, my desktop computer has been a Shuttle SG33G5 with an Intel Q6600 processor turned into a Hackintosh. The computer died on me a few months ago and I've been using my MacBook Pro 2009 to do everything. I've got two RAID drives hooked up to it, my large iTunes library and Aperture library is on the RAID drive. Another RAID drive for TimeMachine.

I bought an AppleTV3 the other week and its pretty nice having everything stream over to it. Problem is, it ties up my laptop even more.

I've been contemplating on buying a Mac Mini for awhile now and reading this thread tonight gave me the extra push I need. Thanks! I just found a Mac Mini i7 QuadCore Server edition refurbished in the AppleStore. I just picked it up with the new AirPort Extreme BaseStation. Time to free up the laptop to do what it's supposed to do - for mobile use. I can't wait to finally have a real Apple desktop. The last real Apple desktop I had was a Macintosh LC!!!

I would not worry about wearing out modern SSDs in their useful life (3-5 years) because you will want a new larger faster drive by the time wear becomes an issues. The SF2200 series controller has great wear leveling plus over provisioning.

nice... right now I am quite pleased with turning my mac on in around 20 seconds, can't wait to see what speeds the future will bring (but Apple if you are listening don't ever discontinue the Mac Mini !)

----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by AT0MAC

Copy-paste the same sentence for today but swap the word "morning" for "whenever I get free time".

Not to offend you but I would recommend you made a thread yourself. Most people read a thread because of its headline, so if you start mixing different discutions into my thread it will be confusing what the overall topic originally was. Best option for your needs would probably have been the server edition because of the harder working cpu. Sorry m8

Not offended.

But i don't see how i am off topic at all.

You are trying to
Assemble the worlds fastest Mac Mini DualCore i7

well, so am i.

Any way,

i will try to maximize my Dual core 2.7 with faster ram and as a guy said at another Mac chat, a SSD should help the dual core 2.7 i7 to feed off 16gig of ram.

I have been running benchmarks most of today but decided to make them into comparison graphs to cut down on the amount of stills added to the thread.

Will post them when I have ran more benchs.

Just installed the 16GB DDR3 1600MHz right now and will over night run a couple of Rember tests to see if they work as expected.
Can though already tell that they DO run 1600MHz even in a Mac Mini, the auto overclock thingy seems to work.

Could you post link to the RAM modules and reseller you purchased them from? I just installed 8GB of DDR3 1600 kingston PnP

Could you post link to the RAM modules and reseller you purchased them from? I just installed 8GB of DDR3 1600 kingston PnP

The Corsair set is not online on Corsairs own webpage, I learned about it by accident. I bought my RAM in a local Danish store, because for things that small it does not make sense to pay for postage from other countries.
On their website everything is in Danish so make sure you turn your G translate on of swallow that Bable fish

Today almost a week later I have finally managed to install and setup everything for what I will use the mini for normally.

I have a lot a lot a lot of programs wich all have their special settings, making aliases to all the folders all over the system that are on my external drive (like my iPhoto library) and on the second SSD (like my downloads folder).

Decided to use it as a single SSD for boot and apps and the other SSD is for most commonly used files + boot camp.
Boot camp would never work in RAID, so thats the primary reason.

Another thing also, I managed to fit the wifi grill back into its original position! Am not going to fiddle more around in this tiny case for the next many months, so better get it right the first (or second) time.

Next update will be a few videos on my YouTube channel whenever I get time to edit it all together, watch out for pretty amazing speed tests.

Am currently warming up to buy a NAS as soon prices drop here in DK, so am moving data from three different harddrives and two flash drives into one single external drive, sorting it and setting up the correct shortcuts so programs like iTunes can find the music on the external drive instead of wearing out my SSDs in no time.

Wonder if there's anything to be gained in the lower voltage of the Crucial kit over the Corsairs? Sandy Bridge has the memory controller in the CPU, so I guess the CPU having to supply the memory with lower voltage would lower CPU temps?